2016 NFL Offseason

[Edward Richtofen]

I don't think Seattle is going to win the superbowl.
there's something about this patriots team that I don't like.
It's almost as if they're so hellbent on that 4th ring that they refuse to lose.
The defense has improved tremendously (not as good as the early 2000s D) so it makes it a high possibility for the patriots to win
82% chance of New England victory

[The greater Vakolicci Haven]

I don't think Seattle is going to win the superbowl.
there's something about this patriots team that I don't like.
It's almost as if they're so hellbent on that 4th ring that they refuse to lose.
The defense has improved tremendously (not as good as the early 2000s D) so it makes it a high possibility for the patriots to win
82% chance of New England victory

Plus, they've got a quarterback who knows what a completion is.

[Bythyrona]

I don't think Seattle is going to win the superbowl.
there's something about this patriots team that I don't like.
It's almost as if they're so hellbent on that 4th ring that they refuse to lose.
The defense has improved tremendously (not as good as the early 2000s D) so it makes it a high possibility for the patriots to win
82% chance of New England victory

Plus, they've got a quarterback who knows what a completion is.

[Tsa-la-gi Nation]

Sir I've been watching football for over 30 years and I played football in high school, so I have understanding. In games when the contest is over well before the clock runs out, there is a time when you put the 2nd string in, not only for the safety of your star players, not only to give others a chance to play in a championship game who don't get a chance to play as often, but also as a show of sportsmanship to the team that is obviously defeated. It's the same concept when a winning basketball team subs in their bench in the final minutes & dribbles the ball to a closeout instead of throwing up a 3 point shot or driving to the basket in the final seconds just to add to the winning score. If Brady was told to go in there, then that's on Belichich, but the goal with 6 minutes left, with the score 45 to 7 should have been to run out the clock. That pass was arrogant.

That pass was what he was capable of. When you're obviously winning, why not track up the best score you think you can?

http://kdvr.com/2015/01/09/california-high-school-girls-basketball-team-wins-game-161-2/

A few weeks ago a girls high school basketball team won a game 161-2. The coach of the loosing team said “People shouldn’t feel sorry for my team. They should feel sorry for his team, which isn’t learning the game the right way,” & “He’s a great X’s and O’s coach. Ethically? Not so much. He knows what he did was wrong.”. Now, in defense of the winning coach he did pull his starters, but when you ask "why not track up the best score you think you can?", the 1st correct answer is to give other players a chance to play (especially in a championship game) who don't get to play that often, and the 2nd is because there is no difference to the winning team between 45-7 & 52-7. I know there is a big difference between high school & pro, but imagine your little girl liking basketball & wanting to play & being on a team that looses 161-02, or imaging being 2nd string on a team that is wining 45-7 & your still siting on the bench when all you as as a bench player is to get a chance to play when it's possible. Do you think all those high school students on that loosing team still want to play after loosing 161-2? Is that why society places importance on sports, to pound the other player's dick in the dirt as hard as you can when you get the chance? Or, is it more about learning to love competition, but also learning to love the play of the game for yourself and others around you?

[Cymrea]

I don't know if the Seahawks will win a second Superbowl, but I certainly hope they do. And against the team that last repeated as champions would be pretty sweet.

[Cymrea]

That pass was what he was capable of. When you're obviously winning, why not track up the best score you think you can?

http://kdvr.com/2015/01/09/california-high-school-girls-basketball-team-wins-game-161-2/

A few weeks ago a girls high school basketball team won a game 161-2. The coach of the loosing team said “People shouldn’t feel sorry for my team. They should feel sorry for his team, which isn’t learning the game the right way,” & “He’s a great X’s and O’s coach. Ethically? Not so much. He knows what he did was wrong.”. Now, in defense of the winning coach he did pull his starters, but when you ask "why not track up the best score you think you can?", the 1st correct answer is to give other players a chance to play (especially in a championship game) who don't get to play that often, and the 2nd is because there is no difference to the winning team between 45-7 & 52-7. I know there is a big difference between high school & pro, but imagine your little girl liking basketball & wanting to play & being on a team that looses 161-02, or imaging being 2nd string on a team that is wining 45-7 & your still siting on the bench when all you as as a bench player is to get a chance to play when it's possible. Do you think all those high school students on that loosing team still want to play after loosing 161-2? Is that why society places importance on sports, to pound the other player's dick in the dirt as hard as you can when you get the chance? Or, is it more about learning to love competition, but also learning to love the play of the game for yourself and others around you?

Belichek has been a top-shelf d-bag for many years, he's not going to change anytime soon. Playing the second string has the added benefit of providing your back-ups some invaluable in-game experience without jeopardising the potential to win. Especially in the NFL where everything is high-stakes business.

[The greater Vakolicci Haven]

That pass was what he was capable of. When you're obviously winning, why not track up the best score you think you can?

http://kdvr.com/2015/01/09/california-high-school-girls-basketball-team-wins-game-161-2/

A few weeks ago a girls high school basketball team won a game 161-2. The coach of the loosing team said “People shouldn’t feel sorry for my team. They should feel sorry for his team, which isn’t learning the game the right way,” & “He’s a great X’s and O’s coach. Ethically? Not so much. He knows what he did was wrong.”. Now, in defense of the winning coach he did pull his starters, but when you ask "why not track up the best score you think you can?", the 1st correct answer is to give other players a chance to play (especially in a championship game) who don't get to play that often, and the 2nd is because there is no difference to the winning team between 45-7 & 52-7. I know there is a big difference between high school & pro, but imagine your little girl liking basketball & wanting to play & being on a team that looses 161-02, or imaging being 2nd string on a team that is wining 45-7 & your still siting on the bench when all you as as a bench player is to get a chance to play when it's possible. Do you think all those high school students on that loosing team still want to play after loosing 161-2? Is that why society places importance on sports, to pound the other player's dick in the dirt as hard as you can when you get the chance? Or, is it more about learning to love competition, but also learning to love the play of the game for yourself and others around you?

If I was on a team that lost 161-2, I'd be thinking about why the hell I lost 161-2 (or 55-7 for that matter.) It's not the other teams fault for being very good, it's your own fault for being rubbish. That sort of victor-blaming is why school sports in the UK are so small-scale.

[Tiami]

Plus, they've got a quarterback who knows what a completion is.

Vak is blind.

[Tiami]

I spit at your lack of understanding of a QB in general. QBs love to play the game. He wanted to play more, so he got to play more. Simple as that. Ask Brock Osweiler about Peyton Manning's love for the game. You should now understand that's it's anything but poor sportsmanship. We might as well consider most quarterbacks, coaches, and players in gerneral to be poor sportsman for staying in the game long after the game is decided.

Sir I've been watching football for over 30 years and I played football in high school, so I have understanding. In games when the contest is over well before the clock runs out, there is a time when you put the 2nd string in, not only for the safety of your star players, not only to give others a chance to play in a championship game who don't get a chance to play as often, but also as a show of sportsmanship to the team that is obviously defeated. It's the same concept when a winning basketball team subs in their bench in the final minutes & dribbles the ball to a closeout instead of throwing up a 3 point shot or driving to the basket in the final seconds just to add to the winning score. If Brady was told to go in there, then that's on Belichich, but the goal with 6 minutes left, with the score 45 to 7 should have been to run out the clock. That pass was arrogant.

And I've played division I college ball, and have watched football for nearly as long. Look, I know very well how the game works. If you have ever watched an interview Tom Brady has been he, he almost always talks about the grind of the game. Being in late is the result of his love for the game, not because he wants to make the Colts look even worse. Even when leading, he's always trying to making plays for his team. It's not arrogant at all to attempt a long pass or to keep him in.

What baffles me is that we're all talking about the Patriots running up the score, but not once did did any of us mention any other teams running up the score throughout the season (Broncos, Colts for example).

[Bythyrona]

If I was on a team that lost 161-2, I'd be thinking about why the hell I lost 161-2 (or 55-7 for that matter.) It's not the other teams fault for being very good, it's your own fault for being rubbish. That sort of victor-blaming is why school sports in the UK are so small-scale.

"Victor-blaming"? So you endorse being a terrible sportsman?

At the highest level of sport, leading by 5.5 scores, there's zero gain in padding the stat sheet late all the while continuing to wager an injury to a starter. At the lowest level of sport, up fifty times the opponent's score, there is still zero gain in trashing the other team when hopelessly ahead and, in fact, it makes you look like a dickhead to continue to run up the score in a childs' game.

(As an aside, the coach should not have been suspended, but should have received a formal reprimand; the larger, more important issue here is that the particular league did not have a mercy rule in place. Also, this situation was far from the first time something like this had occurred in youth basketball - remember this serious load of horseshit where the coach was fired for winning 100-0? Truly awful decision on the school's part.)

[Bralia]

If I was on a team that lost 161-2, I'd be thinking about why the hell I lost 161-2 (or 55-7 for that matter.) It's not the other teams fault for being very good, it's your own fault for being rubbish. That sort of victor-blaming is why school sports in the UK are so small-scale.

"Victor-blaming"? So you endorse being a terrible sportsman?

At the highest level of sport, leading by 5.5 scores, there's zero gain in padding the stat sheet late all the while continuing to wager an injury to a starter. At the lowest level of sport, up fifty times the opponent's score, there is still zero gain in trashing the other team when hopelessly ahead and, in fact, it makes you look like a dickhead to continue to run up the score in a childs' game.

(As an aside, the coach should not have been suspended, but should have received a formal reprimand; the larger, more important issue here is that the particular league did not have a mercy rule in place. Also, this situation was far from the first time something like this had occurred in youth basketball - remember this serious load of horseshit where the coach was fired for winning 100-0? Truly awful decision on the school's part.)

Did you miss the part where they mentioned that the back-ups were brought in during that game? A game has to be completed somehow. It is not the winning team's fault (nor the coach's) in the slightest that they slaughtered their opponent.

[The greater Vakolicci Haven]

If I was on a team that lost 161-2, I'd be thinking about why the hell I lost 161-2 (or 55-7 for that matter.) It's not the other teams fault for being very good, it's your own fault for being rubbish. That sort of victor-blaming is why school sports in the UK are so small-scale.

"Victor-blaming"? So you endorse being a terrible sportsman?

At the highest level of sport, leading by 5.5 scores, there's zero gain in padding the stat sheet late all the while continuing to wager an injury to a starter. At the lowest level of sport, up fifty times the opponent's score, there is still zero gain in trashing the other team when hopelessly ahead and, in fact, it makes you look like a dickhead to continue to run up the score in a childs' game.

(As an aside, the coach should not have been suspended, but should have received a formal reprimand; the larger, more important issue here is that the particular league did not have a mercy rule in place. Also, this situation was far from the first time something like this had occurred in youth basketball - remember this serious load of horseshit where the coach was fired for winning 100-0? Truly awful decision on the school's part.)

For the winning team in that basketball game, the players should have been proud. To be honest, I think that the losing team probably took more out of it from losing so heavily than they would have done if they'd only lost by a respectable margin. It's a good kick up the ass to get them trying harder.

In the Patriots game, it's quite clear that Brady (surprise surprise) likes playing football. If he doesn't want to go off, why should he have to just because your team was on top?

Also, would you complain if your own team were doing this? I wouldn't complain either way: if any of the teams I support (Giants nfl, Manchester United premier league, Worcester Warriors in the rugby championship) had a huge victory, I'd be happy. If they lost, sure I'd be annoyed, but I wouldn't say that the team that destroyed them didn't have the right to destroy them.

[Edward Richtofen]

I don't think Seattle is going to win the superbowl.
there's something about this patriots team that I don't like.
It's almost as if they're so hellbent on that 4th ring that they refuse to lose.
The defense has improved tremendously (not as good as the early 2000s D) so it makes it a high possibility for the patriots to win
82% chance of New England victory

Seattle out of all teams (except maybe a healthy Steelers team) have the highest chance of beating the Patriots.
Seattle 18%
Greenbay 9%
Carolina 1%
Arizona (with Palmer healthy) 5%
Denver 6%
Bengals 0%
Ravens NIL
Colts NIL
Detroit 3%
Dallas 5%
Steelers N/A too biased to make assumption

[United Russian Soviet States]

Well, I know what I'm watching in two weeks. This was after seeing the score midway through the 3rd, then knowing nothing about it until a few minutes ago. (I live in a house where we don't watch NFL unless the Seahawks and/or the Chargers are in the Super Bowl. Not my rule, either. :/ )

Edit, after reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XLIX:
Oh no! I hope NBC doesn't butcher the coverage of the Super Bowl the way they make the Olympics boring. But then again they did have great NBA coverage two decades ago.

On October 9, 2014, Billboard announced that Katy Perry will perform at halftime…

AAAGH! (Those of you who frequent the NS Sports forum will understand why.)

I would love to see the Chargers in the Super Bowl.

[The greater Vakolicci Haven]

I don't think Seattle is going to win the superbowl.
there's something about this patriots team that I don't like.
It's almost as if they're so hellbent on that 4th ring that they refuse to lose.
The defense has improved tremendously (not as good as the early 2000s D) so it makes it a high possibility for the patriots to win
82% chance of New England victory

Seattle out of all teams (except maybe a healthy Steelers team) have the highest chance of beating the Patriots.
Seattle 18%
Greenbay 9%
Carolina 1%
Arizona (with Palmer healthy) 5%
Denver 6%
Bengals 0%
Ravens NIL
Colts NIL
Detroit 3%
Dallas 5%
Steelers N/A too biased to make assumption

Lol.
Giants?

[Sdaeriji]

That pass was what he was capable of. When you're obviously winning, why not track up the best score you think you can?

http://kdvr.com/2015/01/09/california-high-school-girls-basketball-team-wins-game-161-2/

A few weeks ago a girls high school basketball team won a game 161-2. The coach of the loosing team said “People shouldn’t feel sorry for my team. They should feel sorry for his team, which isn’t learning the game the right way,” & “He’s a great X’s and O’s coach. Ethically? Not so much. He knows what he did was wrong.”. Now, in defense of the winning coach he did pull his starters, but when you ask "why not track up the best score you think you can?", the 1st correct answer is to give other players a chance to play (especially in a championship game) who don't get to play that often, and the 2nd is because there is no difference to the winning team between 45-7 & 52-7. I know there is a big difference between high school & pro, but imagine your little girl liking basketball & wanting to play & being on a team that looses 161-02, or imaging being 2nd string on a team that is wining 45-7 & your still siting on the bench when all you as as a bench player is to get a chance to play when it's possible. Do you think all those high school students on that loosing team still want to play after loosing 161-2? Is that why society places importance on sports, to pound the other player's dick in the dirt as hard as you can when you get the chance? Or, is it more about learning to love competition, but also learning to love the play of the game for yourself and others around you?

The Indianapolis Colts are not a girls high school team. They are a bunch of extremely highly-paid professionals.

[Bythyrona]

Did you miss the part where they mentioned that the back-ups were brought in during that game? A game has to be completed somehow. It is not the winning team's fault (nor the coach's) in the slightest that they slaughtered their opponent.

He ran up the score in a youth game - he was still there, coaching, and he played a part in the game. He's a dick, but I don't endorse his suspension. While his actions were duly worthy of a scolding, again, I believe the far larger issue is the absence of a mercy rule in these situations.

For the winning team in that basketball game, the players should have been proud. To be honest, I think that the losing team probably took more out of it from losing so heavily than they would have done if they'd only lost by a respectable margin. It's a good kick up the ass to get them trying harder.

In the Patriots game, it's quite clear that Brady (surprise surprise) likes playing football. If he doesn't want to go off, why should he have to just because your team was on top?

Also, would you complain if your own team were doing this? I wouldn't complain either way: if any of the teams I support (Giants nfl, Manchester United premier league, Worcester Warriors in the rugby championship) had a huge victory, I'd be happy. If they lost, sure I'd be annoyed, but I wouldn't say that the team that destroyed them didn't have the right to destroy them.

Oh, yes, the best thing for children is to teach them that awful sportmanship and boorish behavior is acceptable. Of course every team needs a good asskicking once in awhile as a motivational tool. Every team needs also needs a large, signature win. I'm not denying the nature of how sport is and should be - I am saying that the behavior in this game went beyond merely "winning big" to "obliterating an opponent in a youth game".

It's not even particularly about Brady's presence, but the playcalling. You lead by 38 points and all you have to do is run the ball and throw a few short, dink-and-dunk passes - instead, the asshole throws a 40-yard pass.

Winning big isn't quite the same thing as intentionally attempting to score in the final period of the game, nor is winning big the same as intentionally humiliating an opponent in a youth basketball game. Winning big is what every football fan wants of their team each week - not to lead by four+ touchdowns and keep piling it on, except in rivalry games. If the Detroit Lions were ever good enough to not only win by large totals but also to continue to have Stafford throwing fade routes to Megatron, I'd be pretty sick of the utter lack of class involved in such acts. (Then again, you are asking about something that's pure fantasy.)

[Edward Richtofen]

Seattle out of all teams (except maybe a healthy Steelers team) have the highest chance of beating the Patriots.
Seattle 18%
Greenbay 9%
Carolina 1%
Arizona (with Palmer healthy) 5%
Denver 6%
Bengals 0%
Ravens NIL
Colts NIL
Detroit 3%
Dallas 5%
Steelers N/A too biased to make assumption

Lol.
Giants?

they didn't make the playoffs so they don't get considered

[The greater Vakolicci Haven]

Did you miss the part where they mentioned that the back-ups were brought in during that game? A game has to be completed somehow. It is not the winning team's fault (nor the coach's) in the slightest that they slaughtered their opponent.

He ran up the score in a youth game - he was still there, coaching, and he played a part in the game. He's a dick, but I don't endorse his suspension. While his actions were duly worthy of a scolding, again, I believe the far larger issue is the absence of a mercy rule in these situations.

For the winning team in that basketball game, the players should have been proud. To be honest, I think that the losing team probably took more out of it from losing so heavily than they would have done if they'd only lost by a respectable margin. It's a good kick up the ass to get them trying harder.

In the Patriots game, it's quite clear that Brady (surprise surprise) likes playing football. If he doesn't want to go off, why should he have to just because your team was on top?

Also, would you complain if your own team were doing this? I wouldn't complain either way: if any of the teams I support (Giants nfl, Manchester United premier league, Worcester Warriors in the rugby championship) had a huge victory, I'd be happy. If they lost, sure I'd be annoyed, but I wouldn't say that the team that destroyed them didn't have the right to destroy them.

Oh, yes, the best thing for children is to teach them that awful sportmanship and boorish behavior is acceptable. Of course every team needs a good asskicking once in awhile as a motivational tool. Every team needs also needs a large, signature win. I'm not denying the nature of how sport is and should be - I am saying that the behavior in this game went beyond merely "winning big" to "obliterating an opponent in a youth game".

It's not even particularly about Brady's presence, but the playcalling. You lead by 38 points and all you have to do is run the ball and throw a few short passes - instead, the asshole throws a long (incomplete) bomb.

Winning big isn't quite the same thing as intentionally attempting to score in the final period of the game, nor is winning big the same as intentionally humiliating an opponent in a youth basketball game. Winning big is what every football fan wants of their team each week - not to lead by four+ touchdowns and keep piling it on, except in rivalry games. If the Detroit Lions were ever good enough to not only win by large totals but also to continue to have Stafford throwing fade routes to Megatron, I'd be pretty sick of the utter lack of class involved in such acts. (Then again, you are asking about something that's pure fantasy.)

It's perfectly acceptable (and I'd argue advisable) to teach kids that the culture of 'it's the taking part that counts' is quite definitely wrong. When you've got an obvious advantage against an opponent, you use it to crush said opponent, rather than thinking of what their emotions might be. It's their own fault for playing humiliatingly bad.

If you're a team of highly-payed professionals, I'm sure you're so sad that you lost by those 40 points. However, if I was given the opurtunity to play in a nice and sporting game or play in an unrigged game, still taking home millions of dollars, I'd choose the option that actually judges you based on what you can do on the field, not on how good a 'sportsman' the other guy is. TBH, I think a mercy rule is actually quite condescending to the losing team. 'You're obviously inferior so we won't even bother playing against you' what a truly disgusting attitude to hold in sport.

[The greater Vakolicci Haven]

Lol.
Giants?

they didn't make the playoffs so they don't get considered

So still a big zero.

[The greater Vakolicci Haven]

Lol.
Giants?

they didn't make the playoffs so they don't get considered

So still a big zero.

[Edward Richtofen]

they didn't make the playoffs so they don't get considered

So still a big zero.

Coughlin pulls it out of his ass a third time if the giants are magically in the superbowl again

[The greater Vakolicci Haven]

So still a big zero.

Coughlin pulls it out of his ass a third time if the giants are magically in the superbowl again

that would be nice, although they offloaded far too many good veteran players too quickly.

[Bythyrona]

It's perfectly acceptable (and I'd argue advisable) to teach kids that the culture of 'it's the taking part that counts' is quite definitely wrong. When you've got an obvious advantage against an opponent, you use it to crush said opponent, rather than thinking of what their emotions might be. It's their own fault for playing humiliatingly bad.

If you're a team of highly-payed professionals, I'm sure you're so sad that you lost by those 40 points. However, if I was given the opurtunity to play in a nice and sporting game or play in an unrigged game, still taking home millions of dollars, I'd choose the option that actually judges you based on what you can do on the field, not on how good a 'sportsman' the other guy is. TBH, I think a mercy rule is actually quite condescending to the losing team. 'You're obviously inferior so we won't even bother playing against you' what a truly disgusting attitude to hold in sport.

And where did I say it was wrong to acknowledge that what happens on the field matter? Where did I say that winning doesn't matter? Humility and being a graceful winner is every bit as important as being a graceful loser, despite this horseshit EVERYTHING IS A COMPETITION HURRRR mentality that the West espouses.

"Talent is God given. Be humble. Fame is man-given. Be grateful. Conceit is self-given. Be careful." - John Wooden
"Self-praise is for losers. Be a winner. Stand for something. Always have class, and be humble." - John Madden
"Build me a son who will be strong enough to know when he is weak, and brave enough to face himself when he is afraid, one who will be proud and unbending in honest defeat, and humble and gentle in victory." - Douglas MacArthur

[The greater Vakolicci Haven]

It's perfectly acceptable (and I'd argue advisable) to teach kids that the culture of 'it's the taking part that counts' is quite definitely wrong. When you've got an obvious advantage against an opponent, you use it to crush said opponent, rather than thinking of what their emotions might be. It's their own fault for playing humiliatingly bad.

If you're a team of highly-payed professionals, I'm sure you're so sad that you lost by those 40 points. However, if I was given the opurtunity to play in a nice and sporting game or play in an unrigged game, still taking home millions of dollars, I'd choose the option that actually judges you based on what you can do on the field, not on how good a 'sportsman' the other guy is. TBH, I think a mercy rule is actually quite condescending to the losing team. 'You're obviously inferior so we won't even bother playing against you' what a truly disgusting attitude to hold in sport.

And where did I say it was wrong to acknowledge that what happens on the field matter? Where did I say that winning doesn't matter? Humility and being a graceful winner is every bit as important as being a graceful loser, despite this horseshit EVERYTHING IS A COMPETITION HURRRR mentality that the West espouses.

"Talent is God given. Be humble. Fame is man-given. Be grateful. Conceit is self-given. Be careful." - John Wooden
"Self-praise is for losers. Be a winner. Stand for something. Always have class, and be humble." - John Madden
"Build me a son who will be strong enough to know when he is weak, and brave enough to face himself when he is afraid, one who will be proud and unbending in honest defeat, and humble and gentle in victory." - Douglas MacArthur

Not really. It is important to show your superiority in any competition of skill, and to make that obvious. This is especially true if you've got a big game coming up, and the patriots do have a farely big game coming up I think. It boosts confidence immensely.